Ofcom : BBC News & Current Affairs

Today, 10 June, Jonathan N Fuller sent the latest of his reports to Ofcom as part of its review into BBC news and current affairs. This work entails him reviewing over 70 hours of BBC output every week.

The letter content in full ...

Dear Sir/Madam,

HEADING:

: 1 to 31 May: News connected with climate change/breakdown

This is the third monthly report I have sent you. Please let me know when your review finishes and if you want me to continue to send these reports.

This report, on May 2019 output, shows beyond reasonable doubt that the BBC is continuing to suppress the most frightening and embarrassing news. The evidence also shows that the BBC continues to pose soft/no questions to those whose policies and actions will lead to mass loss of life.

While it is clear that the BBC is now running more news items relating to climate breakdown, it is also clear that many presenters do not understand the science nor the implications of some of the topics they are reporting upon.

HEADING: About the ‘BBC: Tell The Truth’ group

This group now has nearly 700 members.

Members recognise that climate breakdown is unlike any other news story. If the BBC allowed the public to hear the full horrifying news and facts, audiences would be given the opportunity to seek changes to energy policy that would rapidly reduce emissions and save lives. The BBC’s failures in this regard also prevents the public from seeking the changes to food production systems that would build resilience in the event of sudden disruption to agricultural production.

The BBC’s suppression of crucial news is, of itself, a serious national security risk.

HEADING: 1 to 31 May: News connected with climate breakdown

There were many stories relating to climate breakdown covered on TV, radio and online the month. Many people have criticised new stories for not going into adequate depth and, in some cases, not reporting an important news story at all. This summary is intended to pick out the main failings on TV and radio, rather than quibble over every detail.

HEADING: 1 May: Parliament declares a climate emergency.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48126677

Parliament’s declaration of an emergency was extraordinary and draws comparisons with the scale of the crisis the UK faced during WWII. This crucial news story didn’t make it onto the main evening TV news and, when it was tackled on ‘Newsnight’, criticism was made by a guest of the BBC’s failure to include it in the main TV news programmes.

It is vital that the BBC and Ofcom note the fact that the UN Secretary General and government ministers have confirmed that climate breakdown is “a direct existential threat”. Putting it into plain English, Sir David Attenborough has occasionally said on BBC TV that it could “cause the collapse of civilisation” (although the BBC still refuses to explain to the public the process that leads to that outcome). Hundreds of thousands of people are being killed every year and so, when two of those with primary responsibility for so much death and suffering are interviewed (MPs), that is precisely when the BBC should pose the very strongest questions.

While the debate on Newsnight was interesting and added to the public’s understanding of some of the issues, most questions posed by the presenter were soft and one important one on aviation expansion was not pursued. The Labour MP didn’t want to confront the issue of aviation, so changed the subject and the presenter let him get away with it. The presenter only put one tough question – suggesting that the Conservative Party would be accused of sitting on the wrong side of history.

The BBC failed to treat this issue with the gravity it deserved, both on Newsnight, and by failing to include this in the main TV news of the evening.

Turning to the declaration by Parliament, a criticism widely made in other media outlets is that Parliament’s declaration is dishonest and is intended to dupe the public into thinking more dynamic action will be taken when, in fact, the main political parties have no intention of radical change to energy policy. Given the fact that the evidence strongly suggests this is the case, the BBC had a duty to alert the public that they were being grossly misled. But the BBC failed to do so. Indeed you will see that I warned of this danger in my letter of 13 April to you (also copied to the BBC).

The BBC will also be aware of considerable criticism of its refusal to allow the public to hear about the cost of the ‘negative emissions’ burden to be imposed upon all taxpayers after the year 2050 (COP 21 requires that the young pay to extract CO2 from the atmosphere in the second half of the century). This financial burden is greater than any burden previously passed from one generation to the next - around 4 times greater than the entire national debt. Despite this issue being of vital importance to BBC audiences the Corporation will not explain the issue to the public nor will it put any relevant questions to politicians, as it should have done as part of the Newsnight item on 1 May.

HEADING: 2 May: Committee on Climate Change report on Net-Zero target by 2050

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48122911

This item of news received considerable coverage on the BBC. The BBC knew well in advance that the story was coming and had plenty of time to prepare for it. The BBC gave a series of good background items, helping viewers to understand a number of areas that would be impacted by strengthening the target from 80% by 2050 to Net-Zero by 2050. Some environmental campaigners were allowed to call for a stronger Net-Zero target and express the need for tougher action.

But there were serious gaps in BBC reporting and so it failed to meet its Charter commitments.

Given the fact that the target set determines how many people will be killed, how many homes are destroyed and whether we actually suffer runaway climate change (that could cause the collapse of civilisation), it was extraordinary that no probing questions were put to government ministers. It was as if government ministers had informed news outlets that no one was available for comment about the report and so the BBC made little comment about how inadequate government energy policy was. It cannot be stressed strongly enough that if government ministers are too embarrassed to face tough questions that should not stop the BBC from exposing the truth.

This is a vital area of public policy, an issue of huge concern to the public. A recent YouGov poll showed that environmental concerns were of greater importance to those polled than the economy, crime and immigration. So the BBC should have broadcast more detail explaining points that the public ought to be allowed to know, including:-

? The UK has grabbed an inequitable share of global emissions, taking a larger allowance, per capita, than the global average;

? An equitable (per capita) share would require that the UK makes a much bigger effort than it is;

? The Net-Zero by 2050 target still leaves the world off course from the COP21 commitment to keep temperatures “well below 2C” (it leads us to catastrophe);

? Government plans to ban the sale of new fossil fuelled cars by 2040 but this is incompatible with a Net-Zero 2050 target;

? The government is still allowing the construction of homes that will have to be retrofitted to a higher standard of insulation if we are to meet a Net-Zero 2050 target;

? Government policy to expand aviation is incompatible with a Net-Zero 2050 target and, in reality, requires that the aviation sector be reduced in size and subjected to mandatory carbon offsetting;

? Government has effectively banned new onshore wind power in England, a policy which runs counter to a Net-Zero 2050 target; and

? How the energy policies of each of the political parties fit, or do not fit, with the proposed tougher target.

If, as seems the case, government has sought to silence debate on this crucial national security issue, the BBC must not be complicit in that silence by failing to undertake a rigorous analysis of government failures.

HEADING: 3 May: Cyclone Fani hits India.

Cyclone Fani was particularly powerful and damaging. It warranted coverage because of the huge number of people impacted and, while direct attribution to climate change is not yet possible, there are links to climate breakdown that need to be made. For example please see this report from UNICEF on the impact upon children: -

https://www.unicef.org/…/deadly-cyclones-rise-unicef-raises…

Whenever an extreme weather event impacts countries around the world the BBC should take the opportunity to explain if direct attribution to climate breakdown is or is not yet possible and then explain to audiences what the impact is of climate breakdown in that country. For example, cyclone Fani provides an opportunity mention the wider impact of climate breakdown upon India, setting out recent trends and records broken.

HEADING: 6 May: UN Report on Nature crisis: Humans 'threaten 1m species with extinction'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48169783

The report from the UN was rightly given substantial coverage throughout the day on all BBC platforms. Most of the coverage was good, enabling people to understand the issues, including the link to climate breakdown. But again on 6 May, as on 2 May (see above), there was a complete lack of confrontation with government ministers. Here was an unprecedented, desperate, report from the UN, with huge implications for government policy but government minsters were not being put on the spot. Ministers were not facing tough questions about the need for an immediate UK wide response to the crisis.

This adds significant weight to the case made that the BBC is soft peddling with politicians and government ministers in particular. Tough, demanding questions need to be put to the decision makers; they are not and the BBC is shirking its Charter responsibilities.

HEADING: 8 May: Cybernetic Forests: BBC Radio 4.

On 8 May the BBC broadcast a rather fanciful programme around environmental degradation and climate change with minority appeal ‘Cybernetic Forests’: -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0004sdb

All shades of opinion should be reflected by the BBC but if the Corporation found time for such an esoteric programme it begs the question why the BBC has still not broadcast the crucially important programmes this group and others have repeatedly called for.

For example, the UN warns that runaway climate change is a direct existential threat but the BBC still refuses to set out in a clear 1 hour documentary what the main climate feedbacks are, how they interact, what tipping points are, and what the scale of the risk is that the feedbacks will combine, dramatically reducing global agricultural production and causing the collapse of civilisation.

Many people fear that the BBC is deliberately hiding from the public the full horror ahead and uses programmes like ‘Cybernetic Forests’ as a pretence that it is giving due coverage to this crucial national security issue.

HEADING: 10 May: BBC reporting on geoengineering: Creation of the Centre for Climate Repair

The creation of a ‘Centre for Climate Repair’ at Cambridge University was a major item of news which touched upon the risk of “runaway climate change” and fleetingly upon the need for “negative emissions” so it was pleasing to see interviews with Prof Sir David King several times on both radio and TV on 10 May.

However, the quality of the analysis was poor and failed to meet 6.1 of the Charter commitments. This issue is so crucial that I will state again what the Charter requires of the BBC: -

"To provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them ….. to build people’s understanding of all parts of the UK and the wider world. Its content should be provided to the highest editorial standards. It should offer a range and depth of analysis and content not widely available from other United Kingdom news providers, using the highest calibre presenters and journalists …… so that all audiences can engage fully with major local, regional, national, United Kingdom and global issues and participate in the democratic process, at all levels, as active and informed citizens.”

Some forms of geoengineering have immense national security implications for the UK, far greater than any direct military threats posed by Russia, China, North Korea or Iran. The more risky technologies are second only to the threat of climate breakdown.

The TV ‘Breakfast’ segment was exceptionally poor, with the presenter apparently welcoming the prospect of a range of geoengineering options, without having a clue about the staggering scale of the cost of carbon removal technologies nor the risks of some Solar Radiation Management (SRM) technologies. When Sir David King pointed out that one technology could badly damage the ozone layer, causing deadly skin cancers around the globe, the discussion ended with the audience left with barely any understanding of the specific technology he alluded to (Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI)).

Even the online article didn’t touch upon this technology, despite many scientists fearing it is the front-runner. See: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48069663

The Radio 4 ‘Today’ segments were better, but here the audience wasn’t even told about the fear of billions of skin tumours caused by SAI technology. Apart from the brief bulletin items there were two main segments on Radio 4. Scroll in 10.37 minutes for a short report and again to the main item at 1.33.40 where Sir David King is interviewed: -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0004sb2

Sir David King quite rightly identified the more benign SRM technology ‘Marine Cloud Brightening’ (MCB) to refreeze the Earth’s polar regions but your presenter appeared to have no idea that the political obstacles are currently insurmountable; with the USA (Mike Pompeo) welcoming the melting Arctic so that ships can make shorter trips closer to the North Pole, and Russia seeking to exploit oil and gas fields that become more accessible as ice retreats.

While the input of reputable scientists is greatly welcomed, it is vital that the technologies outlined are given a social and political context so the public understands the obstacles and wider issues.

I urge Ofcom to look at BBC output online, on TV and on radio and put it to the BBC that it cannot possibly honestly say that its audience understands that: -

? Many scientists argue that runaway climate change has begun and refreezing the Arctic (MCB) is therefore essential;

? The USA and Russian positions currently make the deployment of MCB technology impossible;

? SAI is currently the front runner globally with Harvard University being given permission to run a small scale trial;

? ‘Nature’ magazine has raised the prospects of one or more nations acting unilaterally to deploy SAI, with China and India the lost likely to gain and Northern Europe the most to lose;

? The USA and Saudi Arabia sought to block progress on proper regulation of geoengineering at the 2019 Nairobi conference in order to ‘protect’ their fossil fuel assets;

? One form of SRM/SAI technology, that mimics the effect of the most powerful volcanoes, could result in starvation in the UK (the 1258 famine in the UK killed around a third of the British population as sunlight reaching crops was dimmed following the Samalas eruption of 1257);

? The space mirrors idea shown on TV has very little credibility globally because of cost and the grave risk of a double cooling effect if there is a powerful volcanic eruption on Earth;

? So called ‘termination shock’ is seen as a major risk by scientists;

? The cost of negative emissions technologies to meet COP21 are put at $535 trillion globally, the UK share put at ￡8 trillion - all of which are to be paid by those currently under the age of 25 years;

? Sir David King had said something with huge implications (but was completely ignored by the presenter) - that we don’t merely have to meet the COP21 commitment but, to stabilise climate, we need to reduce CO2 levels down from 415ppm today to below 350ppm;

? The cost of carbon removal technologies will almost certainly be more expensive than making the move today to zero emission technologies and low carbon lifestyles; and

? The pursuit of some highly speculative geoengineering options will likely have the effect of encouraging governments and business to carry on polluting in the false hope that a techno-fix might eventually save us.

It was ironic that the 1.33.40 radio segment included a recording of Extinction Rebellion protectors chanting “Tell The Truth, Tell The Truth” to the BBC, and what followed on 10 May was very far indeed from the BBC doing that and meeting the Charter obligations.

The radio 4 item also included a wholly inaccurate statement by the presenter and Sir David King. They exchanged the opinion that Net-Zero by 2030 was impossible and dismissed it out of hand. In fact, achieving Net-Zero by 2030 is perfectly feasible if we are prepared to make the political choice to do so. If we make very significant changes to lifestyles, dramatically reduce energy intensive activities, initiate the various “Drawdown” natural methods of sequestering CO2 and deploy low carbon technologies quickly enough, then 2030 is feasible.

Many people harbour the suspicion that senior BBC presenters are deliberately trying to rule out dramatic changes to lifestyles for their own personal advantage. The accusation often heard is that senior BBC staff and presenters are not willing to make the sacrifices necessary to avoid catastrophe and so use BBC programming to rule out that strategy.

It is to be hoped that Ofcom will require of the BBC that it immediately commissions a series of programmes on the geoengineering options to correct the serious errors made and also requires of the BBC that it stop misleading the public regarding the political options for radically reducing emissions.

HEADING: 11 May: BBC reporting on geoengineering: BBC Breakfast: Marine Cloud Brightening.

BBC Breakfast TV returned fleetingly to the subject of geoengineering, with a very brief segment out of the 4 hour programme. The programme reviewed two items on geoengineering that appeared that day in ‘The Times’ newspaper, touching upon Ocean Fertilisation and Marine Cloud Brightening.

It was astonishing that out of a 4 hour programme so little was said about what was being proposed. None of the bullet points above (10 May) were touched upon, leaving viewers with no understanding of the technical and political obstacles to what was being proposed.

The guest speaker appeared welcoming of the approach being proposed and this went unchallenged by the two BBC presenters, giving audiences the impression that such interventions should be welcomed and were feasible.

This issue has huge implications for all life on Earth and yet the BBC again failed to provide audiences with anything more than the very most basic outline of what is emerging.

HEADING: 11 May: Civil servant suggests climate targets requires a review of Heathrow expansion decision

This online report was tackled briefly on virtually all the morning TV news bulletins, with the lawyer for Plan B Earth, Tim Crosland, being briefly interviewed. See: -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48233548

It was also covered on BBC Radio 4 ‘Today’ (at 49.39), when Tim Crosland outlined what the civil servant had said and the implication that the Heathrow expansion decision was flawed. See: -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00051d9

What was missing from all coverage that day, as has been pointed out above (see 1 May above) is that the politicians, particularly government ministers, are dodging the issues being raised. The BBC must stop allowing senior political figures from dodging tough questions crucial to our national security. The BBC Charter requires that senior political figures be confronted, with the implications of the issue being explained to the public.

Not only is aviation expansion at Heathrow, or anywhere in the UK, incompatible with a Net-Zero by 2050 target, the expression Net-Zero means that all emissions from every flight have to be extracted from the atmosphere by ‘negative emissions’ elsewhere. The cost of this is so great (e.g. BECCS and Enhanced Weathering technology) that if the cost is added to airline flight tickets, the aviation industry will see a very significant reduction in demand.

This issue is of absolutely vital importance to all those young people currently under the age of 25. This is because the Paris COP21 commitment requires that the young pay to take out of the atmosphere the CO2 we dump there today and do so after the year 2050. This will be well after government ministers, MPs and BBC presenters have had all the flights they want to enjoy today.

The current plan, secretly being backed by Conservative, Labour and LibDem politicians is that the full cost of aviation emissions must be dumped on the young. And it is devastatingly cruel that the BBC, indeed virtually all media outlets, refuse to allow the young to know what is planned for them.

One of the points the Plan B Earth lawyer made on Radio 4 was that the public need information on which to base their decisions. The clear implication was that government and the BBC aren’t providing that information. And the most crucial item of information that is missing from all BBC news coverage is that, if we are to stabilise climate, all emissions from all luxury activities have to stop now or be removed from the atmosphere elsewhere. CO2 concentrations are now at 415ppm and they have to be reduced to below 350ppm if we are stop climate breakdown.

The key fact, the most embarrassing secret, that the BBC continues to hide from the public, is that the young must pay for all the CO2 emitted by all flights taken by the older generation. The BBC’s refusal to report on this has been the subject of previous correspondence with the BBC’s Complaints Director (Colin Tregear). The Director of Complaints once rejected an argument that the public be told about the cost of ‘negative emissions’, on the basis of a minority scientific report, that suggested ‘negative emissions’ technology might not work. While that is a debate worth having, it cannot be right for the BBC to hide from the young what is planned for them. The young have a right to know about this vast debt and that, if the technologies proposed do not work, the young must suffer devastating climate breakdown so older people can continue to fly.

In correspondence the BBC’s Director of Complaints claimed that the BBC wasn’t going to hide this fact permanently from audiences but, in the 9 months since that exchange, the BBC has continued to suppress this information when items of news emerge when it would have been appropriate to mention the deeply embarrassing facts.

It should also be noted that the BBC has a duty to allow minority voices to express their views, but it has not allowed into discussions on this topic, on the main TV and radio programmes, a person who seeks a complete ban on aviation tourism because of the appalling cruelty of the debt that is to be handed to the young.

Finally it should also be noted that the Radio 4 programme contained one factual error. It was said that aviation emissions are 7% of the UK total and growing. This ‘Carbon Brief’ report shows that the ‘radiative forcing’ or ‘non CO2’ emissions are greater. The BBC should be required to correct its misinformation, broadcasting a 30 minute prime-time special documentary that explains the facts, so that those who fly, and those who pay (the young), understand the facts.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-challenge-tackling-av…

HEADING: 14 May: Summer weather extremes linked to stalled Rossby waves in the jet stream

This technical article is important because it warns of ongoing serious disruption to weather patterns that cause extreme heat in the UK and will increasing damage our agricultural production. The BBC has a duty to inform the public of news of this nature, explaining how this might impact the water supply, food production and extremely damaging weather events like moorland fires and flood. See: -

https://physicsworld.com/a/summer-weather-extremes-linked…/…

HEADING: 16 May: ‘Extraordinary thinning’ of ice sheets revealed deep inside Antarctica

Important news on climate breakdown with analysis of the implications should always be provided in the main TV and radio news programmes. See: -

https://www.theguardian.com/…/thinning-of-antarctic-ice-she…

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_re…/2019-05/agu-sf2051619.php

HEADING: 17 May: Canada: Widespread permafrost degradation seen in high Arctic terrain

A peer reviewed article on the pace of thawing permafrost, which has frightening implications relating to runaway climate change, was published on 17 May. It is technical but should have been picked up by the BBC and reported on the main TV and radio bulletins, with an explanation of why melting permafrost is crucial to our survival.

The technical detail: -

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab12fd

A more easily accessible article: -

https://www.mcgill.ca/…/widespread-permafrost-degradation-s…

HEADING: 20/21 May news reports of 2 metres sea level rise by 2100

Much of the media and BBC online reported that sea levels could rise by 2 metres this century and that government will have to amend its forecasts. This has huge implications for society as we prepare to abandon low lying towns and move further inland, concreting over even more wildlife habitat. The youngest members of our families will have to face a terrible burden as they get older. And this has huge implications for current home building guidelines issued by central government to local government.

This is precisely the kind of news that the BBC should not only convey to the public in the main radio & TV news programmes, but undertake a studio discussion, during which the implications are discussed. The BBC’s Charter requires of it that it should ensure people understand the implications of major news stories for them, society at large and their children.

However, the news didn’t make it on to the main TV news programmes. This issue was far more important than some of the topics covered that day, including the collapse of Jamie Oliver’s restaurant business and the death of Niki Lauda.

Taken in isolation, this chronic failure by BBC editors would be described as unprofessional and exceptionally poor judgement but, when seen in the context of the BBC’s ongoing failure to cover the most frighten news, it proves that the BBC is indeed suppressing the most alarming news stories.

If the people were allowed to know the full implications of this evidence it is clear that far more people would demand radical action by government, action that the BBC is now clearly resisting.

Here are two online reports: -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48337629

And: -

https://www.newscientist.com/…/2203700-sea-level-rise-cou…/…

HEADING: 23 May: Chile's Southern Patagonia Ice Field ruptured by climate change

The BBC’s audience should be kept abreast of all scientific developments relating to climate breakdown, with an explanation given by BBC science correspondents as to the implications (see 21 May above).

https://news.trust.org/item/20190523210300-py4id/…

HEADING: 23 May: Climate change profoundly alters plankton populations

Important news on climate breakdown with analysis of the implications should always be provided in the main TV and radio news programmes: -

https://cosmosmagazine.com/…/climate-change-profoundly-alte…

HEADING: 24 May: Global strike for a future by school children.

This BBC online article contains material that should reach a wider audience. Such demonstrations help to inform the public of the global nature of the struggle to prevent catastrophe and mass loss of life. This news should have been broadcast on the main TV and radio news programmes.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-48392551…

HEADING: 27 May: New data from Ross Ice Shelf: Antarctica

The BBC’s audience should be kept abreast of all scientific developments relating to climate breakdown, with an explanation given by BBC science correspondents as to the implications (see 21 May above). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0370-2

HEADING: 28 May: NASA data released – more than a trillion measurements

This report from NASA should have made it onto the main TV and radio news bulletins, with analysis explaining the trends so far observed by NASA.

https://www.nasa.gov/…/icesat-2-global-height-data-availabl…

HEADING: 29 May: USA record breaking tornado season

Not only should the record breaking USA tornado season have made it into the main TV and radio news programmes but the connection with climate breakdown should also have been explained. While footage of some damage was screened on several news programmes, it was described as an act of nature. This article provides more information and to a higher standard.

The BBC should emulate this: -

https://www.cbsnews.com/…/tornado-season-overdrive-extrem…/…

HEADING: 30 May: Scottish Natural Heritage warning of climate apocalypse

The head of Scotland’s nature conservation agency warned the country faces an “apocalypse” of flooded towns, dead forests and polluted rivers unless urgent action is taken to cut CO2 emissions. This report should have made it onto the main TV and Radio news items across the UK.

See: - https://www.theguardian.com/…/scotland-apocalypse-action-cu…

Yours sincerely,

Jon Fuller

BBC: Tell The Truth

CC BBC Lord Tony Hall, Director General

Fran Unsworth: Director of News and Current Affairs

Kamal Ahmed: Editorial Director of BBC News